[Haza]

Do they have any care in the world for the quality of their graphic in the long term? They lack the visual fidelity to last more than 5 years and by then games will have gone into the next-gen of graphical finness

I do hope thought that they decide to give the engine an overhaul at least by LotV because at the current rate of release (10 years for the main game, 3 years for an expansion) their graphics will be gone the way of the dodo.

Also if anyone is wondering about how SC;BW lasted so long, it's because 2D had little to do with graphical quality rather than the art design.

So do you think SC2 will die? Or will it grow into another ugly mutation of the original universe (e.g. WoW).

-Haza

Quick Comments

FSDele:

I care far more for gameplay than graphics.

[Bash]

Game looks fine, i mean sure graphics are nice, but they mean less in a competitive RTS than they do in most things, and WoW's graphic style ("Comical" cartoonish, fairly bright style) is one that has aged really well considering how old it is.

I mean yeah, wow is looking pretty bad in some places lately (i havent seen MoP zones, they could be great), but theyve updated it so many times, once they upate player models ill be content

I'd love LOTV to look even more pretty, but really as long as the game is fun i dont care, because blizzards #1 priority has always been gameplay, make games that are fun, and theyll last longer than any game that lives in graphics, because no matter what, graphics will be outdated in 2 years time.

[Fenner]

dw blizz are pretty good at making games

[Dox]

Sayyyyyy....... What? How detailed do you expect the graphics to BE in an RTS?

1) The game needs to be as "simple" as possible for spectatorship.
2) The game actually still looks really nice in High/Ultra/Extreme Graphics settings.
3) The game needs to be accessible, this is what Blizzard is all about. Their games CAN look pretty, but the big priority is ensuring that people with low-end machines can play their games.

Point #3 is one of the MOST important reasons why BW was so successful. I'm amazed that you could be ignorant of that, and instead praise 2D graphics as being the saving grace.

Of course SC2 will die someday, every game does. But when you're talking Blizzard games, they speak for themselves with lifespans far beyond the rest of the market. The WoW graphics engine has been updated repeatedly, with improved models and textures along the way. I'm struggling to see the relevance.

Quick Comments

Maynarde:

Beat me to it, +1 to this. Blizz knows what they're doin. 17 years of proof

[Haza]

Yes, yes, yes but these days graphics are a bigger issue.

WoW has had graphical improvements, i'm asking whether they'd do it for their find expansion because the length of time it take for them to make it will make their games look comparatively worse for wear over time.

Furthermore, consider the fact that C&C generals 2 is coming out on the Frostbite 2 engine, the detail is insane. Now consider SC2, why shouldn't a massively popular spectators sport have a great graphical quality? It goes against logic.

Of course accessibility is something they aim for, but what of the long term? Yes SC2 will eventually die, but it would at least go down with a bit of fight in it if it didn't inherit an old graphics engine with a lengthy production time (as all blizzard game normally do have).

Quick Comments

	Bash:	hots does have improvements.
	Dox:	yup ^

[AxSGRiM]

your logic goes against my logic :C

Quick Comments

Haza:

:(

[inFeZa]

Graphics mean nothing in a game.


Broodwar is a prime example of how a game like starcraft:broodwar can develop itself on its own, with out constant change and new updates and gimmicks

[Cyanide]

I've played Fallout 2 about a dozen times.
I've played Final Fantasy 7 many times through as well.
Broodwar has lasted until today, and competitively too.
Many people still play their pokemon and zelda games from yesteryears.

I'd say graphics is not a top priority for a game to be successful. Many gamers actually prefer excellent gameplay/story-telling any day.

Quick Comments

	Bash:	+1000000000000
	ToRSmotPokingFish:	^^ this!!!

[dippa]

Originally Posted by Haza

Do they have any care in the world for the quality of their graphic in the long term? They lack the visual fidelity to last more than 5 years and by then games will have gone into the next-gen of graphical finness

you have to remember that starcraft 2 had a very particular target market.

the game isn't aiming at the hardcore who go out and spend $1000 on the latest graphic cards or CPUs the moment they hit - it's aimed at users who had very antiquidated hardware and was developed in a way that it would look functional to those with good computers, but wouldn't exclude those without.

starcraft has never been a game focused on intense graphics - otherwise the dashboard would have been scrapped a long time ago.

also, people who say graphics mean nothing in a game - i think you're wrong, but it's very dependent on what kind of game we're talking about since different sets of gamers have different demands/interests. there are a lot of people out there who enjoy shiny new toys.

[YourFather]

In summary, gameplay is the most important in gaming. But I wouldn't mind great graphics as it's a bonus! Who will complain?

Fine example of good gameplay and graphics will be battlefield 3! It is possible and I sure hope Blizzard achieves the same, they are good at making games

[TCPLemminks]

Personally I completely disagree with your opinion that graphics are important in a game and that how much a developer cares should be judge on graphics alone.

Graphics are nice, but they aren't essential. What keeps a game alive is it's game play.
If you played the original Command and Conquer Generals, you'd realise that that game is ridiculously imbalanced, hence why it's eSports scene hasn't really survived (at least I haven't heard of anything about it in a long while). And while zerg may be OP (Seed ) SC2 is a pretty damn balanced game.

Lastly Blizzard has added a ton of new animations since release. Try picking something up with a phoenix and tell me what happens.

Also this game is a Sci-Fi Fanstay game and it's graphics portray it as such. Deaths look excruciating, storms look devastating and units look intimidating. Plus they are actually pretty good.

Just because some game in the same genre is coming out soon with slightly better graphics doesn't mean that Blizzard should go overboard with improving graphical quality. COD has stuck with the same engine for 5 years, and although franchise fatigue is starting to kick in, it's success hasn't diminished at all (in fact quite the opposite has occurred I believe).

I'll also point to High School Dreams as a game where game play triumphs over graphical quality (or any sort of advanced animation). With multiple mini-games and multiple boys one could pour hours into that game. Heck I can't wait for the sponsorships to start pouring in and see what innovative strategies some progamers will come up with.

My point is mainly that game play is what makes video games unique as an art, and it is game play that will make a video game for the ages.

[BaKaiNu]

Edited the thread title to something less misleading.

[fray`Alpha]

Might be mean, but Haza is a renowed Doche on Bnet forums.. im sad to see his made his way here to sc2sea -.-

Quick Comments

BaKaiNu:

Need not worry, Baka's here.

[Cyanide]

Originally Posted by Ali

Might be mean, but Haza is a renowed Doche on Bnet forums.. im sad to see his made his way here to sc2sea -.-

Fully aware of it.
However, we should grant all newcomers the same level of cordiality regardless.
Let's not derail this thread

[mGGDaedalus]

I guess everyone got bored/sick of your whinging on b.net forums ey?

Quick Comments

	fray`Alpha:	im with josh here -.-
	Dox:	this was no more harmful than ali's post ...

[VB_Boony]

I play and I assume most people play on low graphics anyway. This makes sure you are getting the best performance out of your machine.

[inFeZa]

Also - recently i've been playing a lot of Worms Armageddon, coz i bought the pre-order for Revolution, and have to say that worms is something that the gameplay will last literally forever, i mean unless its actually incompatible with future windows or something, Worms armageddon is just one of those timeless classics where you can load it up and it doesnt feel that it was made from 1999.

That being said, i can't wait for the new physics and weapons of Worms revolution

Yay worms.

Quick Comments

	fray`Alpha:	I love worms >.< havnt played it in way to long
	ToRSmotPokingFish:	if it does not work with new OS then i will get a comp with old OS just to play worms! :D

[FaDeBadger]

The fact that most (if not all) serious gamers play on low graphics should be evidence enough that the target audience of the game couldn't give a shit about graphics. Any stream worth the time to watch, (assuming it's a professional event etc) will have the game set to high or ultra graphics anyway so the spectators still get a "pretty" game to watch.

I personally find high and ultra too bright and distracting, but to each their own.

[Fairyking]

Gameplay>Graphics, nuff said.

[Zanderax]

This video here explains it very well. It says how games fail when they put graphics first.
[NB : Quite a bit of swearing]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...tic-Sociopathy

Sorry no youtube :'(

Quick Comments

TCPLemminks:

As much as I don't really like Jim, he speaks the truth

[mGGDaedalus]

To make a less de-railing post than my last, I'll just say that Blizzard are good at making game engines with highly scaleable graphics. They allow their games to be played on a wide variety of specs while still allowing the flexibility in settings to look quite nice at higher settings. And really the ultra settings already look pretty nice, most of the extra features of something like the frostbite engine would be unwanted post-effects like lens flares etc (BF3 anyone?), which detract from the key principles of SC2 - ie being simple enough that you can always tell what's going on, without anything too distracting.

[Haza]

The time it takes for blizzard to produce their games they should've started on a next-gen graphics engine because by the time LotV is done, what's the use of making a SC2 when it won't have up to date graphics, like BW is atm anyway.

If graphics never mattered, why bother upgrading it in WoW? Why bother when transitioning from Sc to SC2?

Yes I realise people tend to like to play on low graphics, but why can't the viewers of a massively popular *spectators sport* not have a wider appeal. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone here that blizzard has always had the gameplay pretty locked down in terms of quality, but why stop there?

After reading a few posts a lot of people here bring up gameplay> graphics, yes this is true, but why not have the best of both worlds instead of putting all the eggs in one basket and being happy with average for the other?

Also this:

Originally Posted by FaDeDaedalus

I guess everyone got bored/sick of your whinging on b.net forums ey?

I've been having some technical issues over at the b.net forums, so I came here... Keep getting issues with the login, might re-install google chrome.

[Cyanide]

Originally Posted by Haza

Yes I realise people tend to like to play on low graphics, but why can't the viewers of a massively popular *spectators sport* not have a wider appeal.

The spectator sport aspect has already been covered. The onus is on tournament streams to display the highest quality graphics for our viewing pleasure, HD quality streams, high graphic settings etc.

By having a next-gen graphics engine, you are actually making the game appeal to a SMALLER audience. Older computers cannot handle the engine, and you shut them out. What Blizzard has done is gone for the middle ground, older computers still can play the game fine, and high end computers can make the game look really pretty.

[Hwangje]

Brood War required only 64MB of ram for online (correct if i'm wrong) which ment it could be run on almost all the computers that were available when it was released (once again correct me if i'm wrong) which ment that most people could play it, as such it may have only appealed to the smaller audience but the graphics weren't that great even still it's been popular for 13 years now i believe, I don't think starcraft II needs a graphics improvement you see what you need to see to react, I personally play on the lowest settings not because of lag issues of anything but because it's clearer to see and makes it easier for me to react whereas on a higher setting I think you're most likely to get distracted by little things. If starcraft wasn't an RTS high end graphics would be a nice update but in RTS graphics don't define how the game is.
@Haza i get issues with chrome try logging onto the account management page first.

[FSDele]

I still think HotS looks prettier than WoL, or am i just imagining it?

While an update to visual quality is always pretty welcome, that game as it stands now is good enough to last a long time.

[Haza]

Originally Posted by hwangje

@Haza i get issues with chrome try logging onto the account management page first.

Thank you!

Edit:
Actually it seems to be a bigger problem than I initially suspected.
http://sea.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/413951399

I will not underestimate Blizzard's site issues ever again.